U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Disability Rights Section

Enforcing the ADA

A Status Report from the Department of Justice

(October - December 1997)

This Status Report covers the ADA activities of the Department of
Justice during the fourth quarter (October - December) of 1997. This
report, previous status reports, and a wide range of other ADA information
are available through the Department's ADA Home Page on the World Wide Web
(see page 12). The symbol (**) indicates that the document is available on
the ADA Home Page.

INSIDE...

ADA Litigation

Formal Settlement Agreements

Other Settlements

Mediation

Certification

Technical Assistance

Other Sources of ADA Information

How to File Complaints

1997, Issue 4

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a comprehensive civil
rights law for people with disabilities. The Department of Justice
enforces the ADA's requirements in three areas -

Title I: Employment practices by units of State and local government

Title II: Programs, services, and activities of State and local
government

Title III: Public accommodations and commercial facilities

I. Enforcement

Through lawsuits and both formal and informal settlement agreements,
the Department has achieved greater access for individuals with
disabilities in hundreds of cases. Under general rules governing lawsuits
brought by the Federal Government, the Department of Justice may not file
a lawsuit unless it has first unsuccessfully attempted to settle the
dispute through negotiations.

A. Litigation

The Department may file lawsuits in Federal court to enforce the
ADA and may obtain court orders including compensatory damages and back
pay to remedy discrimination. Under title III the Department may also
obtain civil penalties of up to $50,000 for the first violation and
$100,000 for any subsequent violation.

1. Decisions

Supreme Court to Hear HIV Case -- The U.S. Supreme
Court will decide whether a Maine dentist violated the ADA by refusing
to provide routine dental treatment to a patient who is HIV positive. In
Abbott v. Bragdon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit ruled in favor of the patient, as urged by the Department in an
amicus brief. It held that providing routine dental care would not have
posed a direct threat to the health or safety of the dentist or his
staff, because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has found that "patients
with HIV infection may be safely treated in private dental offices when
appropriate infection control procedures are employed." The Supreme
Court will review whether asymptomatic HIV infection is a disability
under the ADA and what weight should be given to a dentist's own
reasonable professional judgment in determining whether a dental
procedure would pose a direct threat to health or safety.

Federal Court Allows U.S. Suit against Stadium Architects
-- A Federal district court judge in Minnesota will allow the Department
of Justice to continue its lawsuit against Ellerbe Becket, one of the
nation's largest architectural firms. The complaint in United States
v. Ellerbe Becket alleges that Ellerbe Becket violated title III by
failing to design and construct new sports arenas in compliance with the
ADA Standards for Accessible Design. In denying Ellerbe Becket's motion
to dismiss, the court found that architects may be held liable for new
construction violations under the ADA and that the ADA requires newly
constructed arenas to provide wheelchair seating locations with a line
of sight over standing spectators.

Temporary D.C. 9-1-1 Order Made Final -- A D.C.
Federal judge issued a final order in Miller v. District of Columbia
requiring the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and the D.C. Fire and
Emergency Medical Services Department to provide direct, effective
access for TDD users to its 9-1-1 emergency response system. The order
replaces an earlier temporary restraining order that applied only to the
police department and requires the D.C. government to install and
maintain TDD equipment, make policy changes, and provide training that
will allow operators to handle TDD calls at each call-taker position.
The D.C. government has appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit.

ADA Requires Dispersed Accessible Seating --A Federal district court in Oregon ruled that the Rose Garden, a
newly constructed indoor sports and entertainment facility that is home
to the Portland Trail Blazers of the National Basketball Association,
does not meet the ADA's requirements for dispersing accessible
wheelchair seating locations throughout the arena. The Department filed
an amicus brief in Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena
Corp. supporting the plaintiffs on this issue and others. The court
found that concentrating accessible seats on the highest level of the
arena where there are only a handful of seats for other patrons violated
the dispersal requirement. In addition, the court agreed with the
Department's argument that the Rose Garden's private suites were not
exempt from the requirements of the ADA and that each must meet the
ADA's new construction standards. The court, however, disagreed with the
Department's position that the requirement for "comparable"
lines of sight in the title III regulation means that accessible
wheelchair locations must provide lines of sight over standing
spectators.

Hotel Franchisor Found not Liable for New Construction
Violations -- A Federal court in South Dakota ruled in United
States v. Days Inns of America, Inc. that national franchisor Days
Inns of America and its parent company, HFS Incorporated, are not
responsible for violations of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design at
the newly constructed Days Inn in Wall, South Dakota. In the court's
view neither entity had exercised sufficient control over the design and
construction of the hotel to be held liable for the many ADA violations,
including the failure to provide an elevator in a three-story hotel. The
Department disagrees with the court's ruling and intends to appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The
Department previously entered into a court-approved settlement agreement
with the Wall, South Dakota, Days Inn's owners, architect, and
contractor. Under the terms of that agreement, those parties must
rectify almost all of the ADA violations at the hotel. The Department
has filed four other lawsuits against Days Inns of America and HFS
Incorporated for their involvement in new construction violations at
Days Inn hotels in California, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky.

2. New lawsuits

The Department initiated or intervened in the following lawsuits.

Titles I and II

Actions to Defend the Constitutionality of the ADA --
The Department intervened in three additional cases in the U.S. Courts
of Appeals where States are arguing that it is unconstitutional for
Congress to permit ADA lawsuits directly against State governments. In
general, the States assert that Congress lacks authority under the
Fourteenth Amendment to subject States to lawsuits under the ADA,
because the ADA's protections go beyond equal protection rights
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Department intervened in each
of the following cases to argue that the ADA is constitutionally
appropriate legislation to remedy the history of pervasive
discrimination against people with disabilities -

Pomeroy v. Western Michigan University (6th Circuit -- title I
reasonable accommodation suit).

Title III

DeVinney v. Maine Medical Center-- The U.S. Attorney
for the District of Maine intervened in DeVinney v. Maine Medical
Center, a private lawsuit brought against Maine Medical Center, the
largest hospital in the State, for failing to provide a qualified sign
language interpreter and other auxiliary aids to a deaf patient in a
suicidal state who was admitted to its psychiatric ward. The plaintiff
alleges that she was denied a qualified sign language interpreter for
the first three full days she was on the psychiatric ward and that
afterwards she only had the occasional use of an unqualified interpreter
for limited portions of her treatment. The plaintiff also alleges that
the hospital only let her use a TDD during restricted hours, though
other patients had no restrictions on telephone usage. The U.S. Attorney
seeks changes in hospital policy, damages on behalf of the private
plaintiff, and civil penalties.

3. Consent Decrees

Some litigation is resolved at the time the suit is filed or
afterwards by means of a negotiated consent decree. Consent decrees are
monitored and enforced by the Federal court in which they are entered.

Title III

Allen v. Russell -- A commercial landlord who allegedly
refused to allow removal of architectural barriers and to lease office
space to a prospective tenant because of his quadriplegia will pay
damages and remove barriers under an agreement with the U.S. Attorney
for the Western District of Oklahoma. The Department intervened to
support the plaintiff in this suit involving a small commercial office
building in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleged that the
defendants refused to rent to him, but subsequently leased the premises
to a friend of the plaintiff acting as plaintiff's representative.
Several days later, however, the landlord allegedly told plaintiff that
he would have to move. The plaintiff also alleged that the landlord
retaliated against him for exercising his ADA rights, refused to remove
architectural barriers, and even prevented the plaintiff from removing
barriers at plaintiff's own expense. Under the consent decree the
defendants will pay $20,000 to the plaintiff and develop and implement
an ADA compliance plan to remove barriers to access.

4. Amicus Briefs

The Department files briefs in selected ADA cases in which it is
not a party in order to guide courts in interpreting the ADA.

Title III

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Association --The Department filed an amicus brief on behalf of a student with a
learning disability who is challenging the rules of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governing eligibility for
athletic scholarships. In particular, he alleges that the high school
core course and test score requirements discriminate against him because
of his learning disability. The Department's brief argues that the
plaintiff should have the opportunity to show that the NCAA is covered
by title III, because the NCAA is a private entity that "operates"
places of public accommodation such as athletic training facilities and
stadiums. It also argues that the plaintiff's complaint adequately
states a claim of discrimination and should be allowed to proceed.

Ford v. Schering-Plough Corporation -- The Department
urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to rule that title
III applies to the terms and conditions of insurance policies. The case
involves an employee of Schering-Plough who became totally disabled as
the result of a mental disorder. In accordance with the employer's
long-term disability policy issued by the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, the employee's benefits were terminated after two years,
although persons disabled by physical disorders were eligible for
benefits until age 65. The employee filed an action claiming that this
difference in benefits violates the ADA. The district court dismissed
the complaint, ruling among other things that Ford did not state a claim
under title III, because she did not allege that she was denied physical
access to MetLife's services. The Department's brief on appeal argues
that title III's coverage is not limited to the denial of physical
access, but that it also extends to discrimination in the terms and
conditions of insurance policies.

Decker v. University of Houston -- Both title I and title II
of the ADA cover the employment practices of public entities, according
to an amicus brief filed by the Department with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In Decker the district court ruled that
Congress could not have intended to provide an additional claim for
employment discrimination under title II when it already ad provided an
explicit, detailed procedure for employment claims under title I. The
Department's brief argues that the broad language of title II and its
legislative history make clear that Congress intended there to be
employment coverage under title II, as well as title I, with title II
procedures patterned after those of section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act. The section 504 procedures give complainants the option of either
filing an administrative complaint with the Federal funding agency or
going directly to court to file suit.

B. Formal Settlement Agreements

The Department sometimes resolves cases without filing a lawsuit
by means of formal written settlement agreements.

Title II

** New Hampshire Sweepstakes Commission, Concord, New Hampshire
-- The Department signed a settlement agreement with the New Hampshire
Sweepstakes Commission that will ensure program accessibility in the
State's lottery program. The agreement resolved a complaint charging
that establishments that sell lottery tickets were inaccessible to
persons with mobility impairments. New Hampshire will evaluate the
accessibility of lottery sales in the 1300 retail establishments
participating in the lottery program, the geographical dispersal of
accessible facilities, the ratio of accessible to inaccessible sites in
each town and county, and the rate of use of each retailer. It will then
develop and implement a plan to ensure that the lottery program as a
whole is accessible to people with mobility impairments. The Department
will review and approve the Commission's actions. Because of the large
number of facilities participating in the lottery program, the
settlement promises to substantially increase the overall accessibility
of public accommodations and State facilities throughout New Hampshire.

California Law Accommodates Glucose Testing by Day Care
Centers -- A new California law exempts blood glucose testing
from the category of "incidental medical procedures" that
cannot be done outside the presence of a licensed health care
professional. The new legislation followed a finding by the Department
of Justice that California was violating title II by maintaining a
licensing program that made it illegal for day care providers to perform
blood glucose finger prick tests for people with diabetes in their care,
unless the tests were done under the direct supervision of a licensed
nurse or physician. Such tests are required under the ADA as a
reasonable policy modification necessary to integrate children with
diabetes into mainstream day care centers. This restriction came to the
Department's attention after it reached a settlement agreement with
KinderCare Learning Centers under which KinderCare agreed to do finger
prick tests for children with diabetes. KinderCare was told by the
California Department of Social Services that if it complied with the
settlement agreement, its child care licenses would be revoked.

Newaygo County, Michigan -- Newaygo County agreed to adopt a
written policy stating that persons with disabilities may bring their
service animals to any county building or county-sponsored activity.
Under this policy persons may be asked if an animal is a service animal
and may be asked to describe the service the animal provides and the
training that the animal has received. However, they may not be required
to document their own disability or show identification or certification
of the service animal's status. The policy statement will be distributed
to all county board members, posted in county buildings, and made
available to the public on request.

Twin Falls, Idaho -- The Department concluded a settlement
agreement with the Fifth Judicial District of the Idaho State court
system to provide effective communication in court proceedings. The
agreement resolves a complaint by a deaf individual alleging that he was
not provided with effective communication during a small claims court
hearing. The individual complained that the small claims judge appointed
a county employee to interpret at the proceeding who was unable to
translate properly, rather than appoint a qualified sign language
interpreter. Under the agreement, the Fifth Judicial District agreed to
provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective
communication and to train judges and court clerks on this policy.

Jackson, Mississippi -- The Mississippi Coliseum, one of the
largest stadiums in that State, will be made accessible to people with
disabilities under an agreement with the Mississippi Fair Commission and
the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration. As part of an
ongoing renovation of the 10,000-seat coliseum, the State will make one
percent of the seating accessible to people who use wheelchairs and
provide companion seating. The agreement calls for the accessible seats
to be dispersed throughout the coliseum with lines of sight over
standing spectators. The State will also provide accessible restrooms,
concession stands, and parking lots; institute new ticketing policies
for accessible seating; train paid and volunteer staff on the
requirements of the ADA, and appoint ADA coordinators to assist people
with disabilities.

** Kingstree, South Carolina -- The Town of Kingstree agreed
to make public documents available on tape at the request of individuals
who are blind or who have impaired vision. The tapes will be provided at
no cost and within three days of the request. Kingstree agreed to adopt
and post a written policy statement on making reasonable modifications
in policies, practices and procedures for people with disabilities. In
addition, Kingstree will adopt and publish a procedure for providing
prompt and equitable resolution of ADA complaints.

More 9-1-1 Centers Commit to
Direct, Effective TDD Access-- The Attorney General's national
9-1-1 compliance review program continues to achieve results. U.S.
Attorney's offices have entered written agreements to ensure direct,
effective access for TDD users to 9-1-1 emergency systems in 13
additional localities around the country.

Algonquin, Illinois

Barrington Hills, Illinois

Creek County, Oklahoma

Crystal Lake, Illinois

Grand Island, Nebraska

Kencom/Yorkville, Illinois

Norfolk, Nebraska

Pryor City, Oklahoma

Quadcom/Carpentersville, Illinois

Rogers County, Oklahoma

South West Dispatch/Palos Heights, Illinois

Sussex County and State Police 9-1-1 Center, Delaware

Tinley Park, Illinois

Under the agreements emergency 9-1-1 centers must have TDD capability
at each call-taker position, every "silent call" received must
be queried with a TDD, and each call-taker must be thoroughly trained in
handling TDD calls.

** Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania --
Prospective jurors with disabilities will now be able to request
accommodations prior to proceedings in open court under an agreement
between the Department and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The
complaint alleged that the only available means for requesting
accommodations for a disability was during voir dire in open court. This
procedure resulted in the unnecessary public disclosure of information
about prospective jurors' disabilities and the unwarranted exclusion of
some prospective jurors because of this information. Under the agreement
the court will include information about requesting accommodations in
the initial jury summons. It will also adopt and publish procedures for
evaluating requests and maintaining the confidentiality of such
requests. If an accommodation is not available for a particular court
date, the court will reschedule the juror for a time when the
accommodation can be provided. The court also agreed to designate an ADA
coordinator and to post publicly its policy on making reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, and procedures.

Denver, Colorado -- The City and County of Denver Election
Commission will take steps to ensure program accessibility in voting.
The agreement resolves a complaint alleging that the commission was
ignoring its own procedures for providing an effective voting process in
precincts with inaccessible voting machines. It requires the election
commission to publish accessibility procedures and to ensure that at
least two election judges are present to assist voters who are unable to
use inaccessible voting machines.

It also requires the commission to provide training for all election
judges on the accessibility procedures, to secure a signed statement
from each judge stating that he or she will follow the procedures, and
to discipline any election judge who fails to follow them.

Title III

** Arizona Shuttle Service, Tucson, Arizona --The Arizona
Shuttle Service, which operates a fixed-route shuttle service between
Tucson and Phoenix International Airport, agreed to operate and maintain
wheelchair-accessible vans and to permit all types of service animals,
not only "seeing eye" dogs, to ride the vans. The agreement
reached by the Disability Rights Section, the United States Attorney's
Office for the District of Arizona, two private plaintiffs, and Arizona
Shuttle resolves two private lawsuits and two complaints filed with the
Department of Justice. The two complaints investigated by the Department
alleged that the Arizona Shuttle Service violated the ADA by refusing to
transport an individual with her service animal because the animal was
not a "seeing eye dog" and by purchasing two new vans that
were not accessible to people with disabilities, including people who
use wheelchairs. Just before entering the agreement, Arizona Shuttle
purchased two accessible vans for its fleet. The agreement requires the
company to maintain its accessible vans and to post and implement a
service animal policy and a written reservations policy that meet the
nondiscrimination requirements of the ADA. The agreement requires
Arizona Shuttle to pay $10,000 in compensatory damages to the individual
who was denied access because of her service animal. Another wheelchair
user and a disability group in Arizona who jointly sued the company for
having inaccessible buses and vans will each receive $2,500 in damages.
Arizona Shuttle will also pay $5,000 in civil penalties to the United
States.

** Nationwide Child Care Agreement Accommodates Children with
Food Allergies, Diabetes, other Disabilities -- The Department
reached an agreement with La Petite Academy, Inc., the nation's second
largest child care provider, protecting the rights of children with
severe food allergies and other disabilities, including diabetes and
cerebral palsy. La Petite Academy, Inc., which operates over 750 day
care centers nationwide, has agreed to administer epinephrine, a form of
adrenaline, to those children who experience life-threatening allergic
reactions to certain foods, such as peanuts, or bee stings. If
authorized by parents and a physician, La Petite staff will use a small
pen-like device (sold as Epipen, Jr., or under other names) that carries
a premeasured dose of epinephrine to alleviate a reaction. The staff
person simply removes a safety cap and presses the pen against the thigh
of the child, discharging the epinephrine. The agreement awards damages
in the amount of $55,000 to five children who were allegedly affected by
La Petite's lack of reasonable modifications for children with
disabilities. Three were children whose food allergies prevented them
from enrollment without the availability of the Epipen, Jr. Two were
children with cerebral palsy, who were denied reasonable modifications
in policies, practices, and procedures that would enable them to
continue in child care. La Petite also adopted a policy for
administering finger prick tests to measure the blood glucose levels of
children with diabetes.

Days Inn, Eureka, California -- The owners and contractor of a
newly-constructed Days Inn hotel in Eureka, California, agreed to remedy
violations of the ADA's requirements for new construction. The remedies
include repaving and restriping a portion of the parking lot to provide
accessible parking, the installation of accessible stair handrails, the
addition of accessible room signage, and the conversion of one standard
room to an accessible room.

C. Other Settlements

The Department resolves numerous cases without litigation or a
formal settlement agreement. In some instances, the public
accommodation, commercial facility, or State or local government
promptly agrees to take the necessary actions to achieve compliance. In
others, extensive negotiations are required. Following are some examples
of what has been accomplished through informal settlements.

The department of human services for a southern State agreed to
institute grievance procedures to handle disability-related complaints
against its contractors, including child-care providers.

Two towns and one parish in Louisiana completed their self-evaluation
and transition plans.

A Texas stadium lowered a bar that was interfering with the line of
sight for accessible seats.

A county-operated cemetery in Nevada agreed to make its grounds
accessible to individuals with disabilities by modifying the walk-in
gate, leveling and paving the entrance area to the walk-in gate to
provide a clear turning space for wheelchair users, and placing a sign
with a contact phone number at the front drive-in gate indicating that
an alternative drive-in gate is unlocked and accessible.

A Michigan court installed an assistive listening system to provide
effective communication at court proceedings.

A California municipal police department adopted a policy ensuring
effective communication in situations involving persons who are deaf or
hard of hearing.

A city in South Carolina installed van-accessible parking spaces in
all of its parking facilities.

A Texas school district agreed to maintain newly-purchased microphones
in working order for board meetings and to require board members to use
them so that persons who are hard of hearing can participate in the
proceedings.

An Arizona court agreed to implement a policy providing appropriate
auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication with
individuals with disabilities, including persons with visual
impairments.

II. Mediation

Through a technical assistance grant from the Department, the Key
Bridge Foundation is accepting referrals of complaints under titles II and
III for mediation by professional mediators who have been trained in the
legal requirements of the ADA. More than 350 professional mediators are
available to mediate ADA cases in 45 States.** Over 80 percent of the
cases in which mediation has been completed have been successfully
resolved. Following are recent examples of results reached through
mediation.

* A deaf individual complained that a Florida doctor refused to pay
for a qualified sign language interpreter for the complainant's office
visit. The doctor, who has recently retired from practice, agreed to
send the complainant a formal letter of apology. The doctor agreed to
make the members of the local medical association aware of their
obligations under the ADA, including providing the means for effective
communication. The doctor also agreed to pay the complainant $310.

* In Virginia, a wheelchair user complained that a condominium sales
office did not have an accessible entrance. The condominium builder
agreed to renovate the sales office entrance to make it accessible. The
builder agreed to display a sign stating the policies they have created
to comply with the ADA. The policies include providing auxiliary aids
and services upon request as needed to ensure effective communication,
making informational videos available upon request, and providing a
method of requesting other accommodations. The builder agreed to donate
$2,500 to a disability rights organization and to pay the complainant
$1,000.

* A deaf person complained that a Maryland hospital did not provide an
appropriate sign language interpreter for the complainant's visit. The
hospital had hired an interpreter who was not qualified to interpret in
American Sign Language. The hospital management acknowledged that they
were unaware that more than one type of sign language existed and agreed
to become better-informed about how to communicate effectively with
people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The management agreed to review
its policies regarding effective communication for people with hearing
disabilities and make changes where appropriate, including allowing
interpreters to be present during various medical procedures.

* Several New York doctors agreed to provide qualified sign language
interpreters for office visits by a deaf individual.

* A wheelchair user complained that a California restaurant located in
a shopping center did not have an accessible entrance. The shopping
center manager agreed to build ramps to make both the primary and
secondary entrances to the restaurant accessible to persons with
disabilities.

* In Pennsylvania, a person with a mobility impairment complained that
a professional building did not have an accessible entrance or
accessible parking. The building owner agreed to install a ramp and
build a walkway at the front entrance to make it accessible for people
with disabilities and to create an accessible parking space near the
ramp. The owner also agreed that the complainant, who cannot stand for
long periods of time, could call the manager or one of the tenants of
the building to have a chair placed in the building's lobby when needed.

* A deaf individual complained that a North Carolina doctor refused to
pay for a qualified sign language interpreter for the complainant's
office visits when necessary for effective communication. The doctor
agreed to establish a policy on auxiliary aids and provide the services
of a qualified sign language interpreter whenever necessary for
effective communication.

* In California, a person who is deaf complained that an attorney
refused to pay for a qualified sign language interpreter for the
complainant's office visit. The attorney established a policy for
providing effective communication for clients in the future. The
attorney agreed to reimburse the complainant for the fee paid to the
interpreter and to refund the attorney's fee.

* A wheelchair user complained that a Virginia restaurant did not have
an accessible entrance or accessible parking. The restaurant owner
agreed to build a ramp and a platform to make the entrance accessible
and to create an accessible parking space. The owner also agreed to pay
the complainant $200.

* A deaf person in Florida complained that a health education
association refused to pay for a qualified sign language interpreter for
its sponsored workshops. The association agreed to provide the services
of a qualified sign language interpreter if the complainant makes a
request at least five working days in advance.

III. Certification of Sate and Local Building Codes

The ADA requires that newly constructed or altered facilities comply
with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (Standards). The Justice
Department is authorized to certify building codes that meet or exceed the
ADA's standards. In litigation, an entity that complies with a certified
code can offer that compliance as rebuttable evidence of compliance with
the ADA.

In implementing its authority to certify codes, the Department works
closely with State and local officials, providing extensive technical
assistance to enable them to make their codes equivalent to the ADA. In
addition, the Department responds to requests for review of model codes
and provides informal guidance to assist private entities that develop
model accessibility standards to make those standards equivalent to the
ADA.

The Department has certified the accessibility codes of the States of
Washington, Texas, and Maine and has pending requests from Florida, New
Mexico, Minnesota, New Jersey, Maryland, California, the Village of Oak
Park, Illinois, and the County of Hawaii. The Department is also
reviewing model codes submitted by the Building Officials and Code
Administrators, International (BOCA) and the Southern Building Code
Congress, International. Recent certification activity includes --

Maine-- After holding public hearings in Augusta,
Maine and Washington, D.C., and reviewing all submitted comments, the
Department certified that the Maine Accessibility Regulations meet or
exceed the new construction and alteration requirements of title III of
the ADA. Maine is the third State to receive ADA certification of its
accessibility code.

Florida -- The Department of Justice held public hearings in
Orlando, Florida and in Washington, D.C. regarding its preliminary
determination that the Florida Accessibility Code for Building
Construction meets or exceeds the new construction and alterations
requirements of title III of the ADA. The Department reviewed all
submitted comments and expects to issue a final certification of
equivalency. If certification is granted, Florida will become the fourth
State in the country to have a certified accessibility code.

IV. Technical Assistance

The ADA requires the Department of Justice to provide technical
assistance to entities and individuals with rights and responsibilities
under the law. The Department encourages voluntary compliance by providing
education and technical assistance to businesses, governments, and members
of the general public through a variety of means. Our activities include
providing direct technical assistance and guidance to the public through
our ADA Information Line, developing and disseminating technical
assistance materials to the public, undertaking outreach initiatives,
operating an ADA technical assistance grant program, and coordinating ADA
technical assistance government-wide.

ADA Home Page

An ADA home page is operated by the Department on the Internet's World
Wide Web (http://www.ada.gov/index.html). The home page
provides information about:

* the toll-free ADA Information Line,

* the Department's ADA enforcement activities,

* the ADA technical assistance program,

* certification of State and local building codes,

* proposed changes in ADA regulations and requirements, and

* the ADA mediation program.

The home page also provides direct access to:

* ADA regulations and technical assistance materials (which may be
viewed online or downloaded for later use), and

* links to the Department's press releases, ADA Bulletin Board, and
Internet home pages of other Federal agencies that contain ADA
information.

**New Technical Assistance on Child Care Issued--
The Department has released a new technical assistance document, "Commonly
Asked Questions About Child Care Centers and the ADA," which
provides a broad range of information about the obligations of child
care programs under the ADA. The document, which was prepared in
connection with the October 23, 1997, White House Conference on Child
Care, is published in a "questions and answers" format. It is
now available through the ADA Information Line, the ADA Fax on Demand
System (document number 3209), and the ADA Home Page.

ADA Information Line

The Department of Justice operates a toll-free ADA Information Line to
provide information and publications to the public about the
requirements of the ADA. Automated service, which allows callers to
listen to recorded information and to order publications, is available
24 hours a day, seven days a week. ADA specialists are available on
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
and on Thursday from 1:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). Spanish
language service is also available.

To obtain general ADA information, get answers to technical questions,
order free ADA materials, or ask about filing a complaint, call:

800-514-0301 (voice)

800-514-0383 (TDD)

ADA Fax On Demand

The ADA Information Line's Fax Delivery Service allows the public to
obtain free ADA information by fax 24 hours a day, seven days a week. By
entering the appropriate document code number, callers can select from
among 30 different ADA technical assistance publications and receive the
information, usually within minutes, directly on their fax machines or
computer fax/modems. A list of available documents and their code
numbers may be ordered through the ADA Information Line.

Publications and Documents

Copies of the Department's ADA regulations and publications, including
the Technical Assistance Manuals for titles II and III, and information
about the Department's technical assistance grant program, can be
obtained by calling the ADA Information Line or writing to the address
listed below. All materials are available in standard print as well as
large print, Braille, audiotape, or computer disk for persons with
disabilities.

Disability Rights Section

Civil Rights Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P. O. Box 66738

Washington, D.C. 20035-6738

Copies of the legal documents and settlement agreements mentioned in
this publication can be obtained by writing to:

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Branch

Administrative Management Section

Civil Rights Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 65310

Washington, D.C. 20035-5310

Fax: 202-514-6195

Currently, the FOI/PA Branch maintains approximately ten thousand
pages of ADA material. The records are available at a cost of $0.10 per
page (first 100 pages free). Please make your requests as specific as
possible in order to minimize your costs.

The FOI/PA Branch also provides access to ADA materials on the World
Wide Web at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/records.htm. A link to
this website is provided from the ADA Home Page.

ADA regulations and technical assistance materials can also be
downloaded from the Department's ADA Bulletin Board System (ADA-BBS).
The ADA-BBS, which includes selected ADA documents from other agencies,
can be reached by computer modem by dialing 202-514-6193 or accessed on
the Internet through www.fedworld.gov using telnet software. The ADA
Home Page also provides a link to the fedworld website.

V. Other Sources of ADA Information

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers technical
assistance to the public concerning title I of the ADA.

ADA documents

800-669-3362 (voice)

800-800-3302 (TDD)

ADA questions

800-669-4000 (voice)

800-669-6820 (TDD)

The Federal Communications Commission offers technical
assistance to the public concerning title IV of the ADA.

ADA documents

202-857-3800 (voice)

202-293-8810 (TDD)

ADA questions

202-418-1898 (voice)

202-418-2224 (TDD)

The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education has funded centers in
ten regions of the country to provide technical assistance to the public
on the ADA.

ADA technical assistance nationwide

800-949-4232 (voice & TDD)

The U.S. Department of Transportation offers technical
assistance to the public concerning the public transportation provisions
of title II and title III of the ADA.

Toll Free ADA Assistance Line

888-446-4511 (voice/relay)

ADA documents and general questions

202-366-1656 (voice/relay)

ADA legal questions

202-366-4011 (voice/relay)

ADA information, questions or complaints

202-366-2285 (voice)

202-366-0153 (TDD)

Project ACTION

800-659-6428 (voice/relay)

202-347-3066 (voice)

202-347-7385 (TDD)

The U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board, or Access Board, offers technical assistance to the
public on the ADA Accessibility Guidelines.

ADA documents and questions

800-872-2253 (voice)

800-993-2822 (TDD)

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a free telephone
consulting service funded by the President's Committee on Employment of
People with Disabilities. It provides information and advice to
employers and people with disabilities on reasonable accommodation in
the workplace.

Information on workplace accommodation

800-526-7234 (voice & TDD)

VI. How to File Complaints

Title I

Complaints about violations of title I (employment) by units of State
and local government or by private employers should be filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Call 800-669-4000 (voice) or
800-669-6820 (TDD) to reach the field office in your area.

Titles II and III

Complaints about violations of title II by units of State and local
government or violations of title III by public accommodations and
commercial facilities should be filed with -